Binary opposition From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations to additional sources. (February 2008) In critical theory, a binary opposition (also binary system) is a pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in meaning. Binary opposition is the system by which, in language and thought, two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another.[1] It is the contrast between two mutually exclusive terms, such as on and off, up and down, left and right.[2] Binary opposition is an important concept of structuralism, which sees such distinctions as fundamental to all language and thought [3] In structuralism, a binary opposition is seen as a fundamental organizer of human philosophy, culture, and language. In the community of philosophers and scholars, most believe that, as Derrida put it, "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."[4] Binary opposition originated in Saussurean structuralist theory.[5] According to Ferdinand de Saussure, the binary opposition is the means by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined against what it is not.[6] Saussure demonstrated that a sign's meaning is derived from its context (syntagmatic dimension) and the group (paradigm) to which it belongs.[7] An example of this is that one cannot conceive of 'good' if we do not understand 'evil'.[8] In post-structuralism, it is seen as one of several influential characteristics or tendencies of Western and Western-derived thought,[citation needed] and that typically, one of the two opposites assumes a role of dominance over the other. The categorization of binary oppositions is "often value-laden and ethnocentric", with an illusory order and superficial meaning.[9] Contents [hide] • 1 Theory of binaries in Western thought • 2 Deconstruction of Western binaries • 3 See also • 4 Notes • 5 References [edit] Theory of binaries in Western thought A classic example of a binary opposition is the presence-absence dichotomy. In much of Western thought, including structuralism, distinguishing between presence and absence, viewed as polar opposites, is a fundamental element of thought in many cultures. In addition, according to post-structuralist criticisms, presence occupies a position of dominance in Western thought over absence, because absence is traditionally seen as what you get when you take away presence. (Had absence been dominant, presence might have most naturally been seen as what you get when you take away an absence.) It has been maintained that the human brain has a preference for binary oppositions, if this is so it will help explain the numerous pairs of related antonyms that are found such as hot and cold, right and wrong and good and bad[10] Essentially the concept of the binary opposition is prompted by the Western tendency to organise everything into a hierarchal structure; terms and concepts are related to positives and negatives with no apparent leeway for deviation for example man and woman, black and white.[11] Therefore many binary oppositions are organised in a hierarchy.[12] According to Jacques Derrida, meaning in the West is defined in terms of binary oppositions, “a violent hierarchy” where “one of the two terms governs the other.” Within the white/ black binary opposition in the West, the African American is defined as a devalued other.[13] Therefore binary oppositions are often organised in a hierarchy. The concept of binary oppositions is also evident in biblical thought and ideology. An explanatory combination of biblical versus in the scrolls turn a term of divine compassion into a measure of binary opposition- innocence versus guilt[14] A more concrete example of a binary opposition is the male-female dichotomy. Some western thinkers, including structuralists, believe that the world is organized according to male and female constructs, roles, words, and ideas. A post-structuralist view is that male can be seen, according to traditional Western thought, as dominant over female because male is the presence of a phallus, while the vagina is an absence or loss. (Alternatively, Western thought could have viewed female as a presence, and male, subordinately, as the absence, or loss, of an invagination or theoretical "hole" of some kind.) The correspondence between each of the dominant Western concepts such as presence and male, as well as others such as rational (vs. emotional), mind (vs. body), thoughts and speech (vs. writings) are claimed to show a tendency of Western thought called logocentrism or phallogocentrism.[15][page needed] John Searle has suggested that the concept of binary oppositions—as taught and practiced by postmodernists and poststructuralist—is specious and lacking in rigor.[16] [edit] Deconstruction of Western binaries The critique of binary oppositions is an important part of third wave feminism, post- colonialism, post-anarchism, and critical race theory, which argue that the perceived binary dichotomy between man/woman, civilized/savage, and caucasian/non-caucasian have perpetuated and legitimized Western power structures favoring "civilized" white men.In the last fifteen years it has become almost routine for any good social and or historical analysis to address the variables of gender, class, sexuality race and ethnicity.[17] Within each of these categories there is usually an unequal binary opposition: bourgeoisie/ working class man; white/people of colour; men/women; heterosexual/homosexual[18] Post-structural criticism of binary oppositions is not simply the reversal of the opposition, but its deconstruction, which is described as apolitical—that is, not intrinsically favoring one arm of a binary opposition over the other. Deconstruction is the "event" or "moment" at which a binary opposition is thought to contradict itself, and undermine its own authority. [19] [edit] See also • Dichotomy [edit] Notes 1. ^ Smith, G 1996, 'Binary opposition and sexual power in Paradise Lost', The Midwest Quarterly, vol.27, no.4, p. 383, (online Infotrac). 2. ^ Baldick, C 2004. The concise Oxford Dictionary of literary terms, viewed 8 March 2011, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1056-binaryopposition.html 3. ^ Baldick, C 2004, The concise Oxford Dictionary of literary terms, viewed 8 March 2011, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1056-binaryopposition.html 4. ^ Jacques Derrida (1991) Afterword: Toward An Ethic of Discussion, published in the English translation of Limited Inc., pp.123-4, 126 5. ^ Fogarty, S 2005, The literary encyclopedia, viewed 6 March 2011, http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?pec=true&UID=122 6. ^ Fogarty, S 2005Fogerty, S 2005, The literacy enclyclopedia, viewed 6 March 2011, http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?pec=true&UID=122 7. ^ Lacey, N 2000, Narrative and Genre, p.64, Palgrave, New York. 8. ^ Lacey, N 2000, Narrative and Genre, p. 65, Palgrave, New York 9. ^ Goody 1977, p. 36 10. ^ Britannica 2011, Binary opposition, viewed 9 March 2011, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/65552/binary-opposition 11. ^ Fogarty, S 2005, Binary opposition, viewed 8 March 2011, http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?pec=true&UID=122 12. ^ Hanson, K 2008, 'The dead sea scrolls and the languageof binary opposition: a structuralist/ post structuralist approach', The Australian Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. 22, p. 26, (online Infotrac). 13. ^ Hogue, W 2008, 'Radical democracy, African American subjectivity and John Edgar Wideman's Philadelphia Fire', Melus, vol.33, no. 3, p. 48, (online Infotrac). 14. ^ Hanson, K 2008, 'The dead sea scrolls and the language of binary opposition: a structuralist/ post structuralist approach', The Australian Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. 22, p. 26, (online Infotrac). 15. ^ See the work of Jacques Derrida 16. ^ In 1983, American philosopher John Searle reviewed Johnathan Culler's On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism for the New York Review of Books, writing, "In Culler's book, we get the following examples of knowledge and mastery [attained from analysis of binary opposites and deconstruction]: speech is a form of writing (passim), presence is a certain type of absence (p. 106), the marginal is in fact central (p. 140), the literal is metaphorical (p. 148), truth is a kind of fiction (p. 181), reading is a form of misreading (p. 176), understanding is a form of misunderstanding (p. 176), sanity is a kind of neurosis (p. 160), and man is a form of woman (p. 171). Some readers may feel that such a list generates not so much feelings of mastery as of monotony. There is in deconstructive writing a constant straining of the prose to attain something that sounds profound by giving it the air of a paradox, e.g., "truths are fictions whose fictionality has been forgotten" (p. 181). 17. ^ Dunk, T 1997, 'White guys: studies in post-modern domination and difference', Labour, vol. 40, p. 306, (online Infotrac). 18. ^ Dunk, T 1997, 'White guys: studies in post-modern domination and difference', Labour, vol. 40, p. 306, (online Infotrac 19. ^ "One sometimes gets the impression that deconstruction is a kind of game that anyone can play. One could, for example, invent a deconstruction of deconstructionism as follows: In the hierarchical opposition, deconstruction/logocentrism (phono-phallo-logocentrism), the privileged term "deconstruction" is in fact subordinate to the devalued term "logocentrism," for, in order to establish the hierarchical superiority of deconstruction, the deconstructionist is forced to attempt to represent its superiority, its axiological primacy, by argument and persuasion, by appealing to the logocentric values he tries to devalue. But his efforts to do this are doomed to failure because of the internal inconsistency in the concept of deconstructionism itself, because of its very self-referential dependence on the authority of a prior logic. By an aporetical Aufhebung, deconstruction deconstructs itself." Searle, ibid. [edit] References • Goody, Jack (1977).